Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
About time - it being in the same category as cocaine or heroin is ridiculous. Highly doubt it'll happen though.
a class B drug? i need some context
Amphetamines, Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Pholcodine.
it's definitely no worse than those. not that i do drugs or anything
Anyway, there's none around!! Pills, that is...
but I don't do them anymore after a certain "experience".
who do them will carry on doing them regardless, no?
haven't really thought it through to be honest. i'm now retreating to my default position of cynical apathy
not that high on priorities?
and where do you draw the line in regards to possesion?
its inevitable. yes the drug policy we have at the moment is clearly not really working, but legalisation i dont think is ever going to be practical.
who in their right mind would have 30 pills on them and claim they were for themselves?
ive known friends to do over 10 and be complete and utter messes. 30 pills, you are basically dealing.
but im saying everyone could say that, so in actuality people could still deal, and claim it was for themselves couldnt they?
it makes no differnece.
but that's only IF I got caught, people that haven't ever been in this situation won't care.
People caught in possesion of it shouldn't be granted the same punishment as those with drugs that are far more dangerous.
supply chain, e.g. directly funding organised crime and what you have mentioned above.
But also you consider what people do when they become drug addicts, theres no doubt that in some cases drugs lead people to cause crime, and having crack addicts in the country has a negative aspect on everyone else too.
i think you would find that itd create a shitload of other problems anyway.
The various drug classifications are entirely arbitrary. There's no specific, set-in-stone method of determining what class a drug should go in.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which is supposed to be the guys who advise the government on where drugs should be classed, thinks that it should be how dangerous a drug is that determines what class it is. They think that Ecstasy is less dangerous than crack, heroin, cocaine and other class A drugs, and should be downgraded. The government on the other hand, sees dugs classes as a handy way of determining how "serious" types of drugs are, for the purposes of criminal sentences/fiddling crime statistics. The higher the class of drugs, the more severe the penalties for being caught with it, etc.
And because no-one really agrees on the purpose of drug classifications, whether its about their danger to health or for their supposed criminality-levels, the whole system ends up being a cocking joke.
Unfortunately the usual response to supporting a move like this is to be portrayed as a glow stick-waving dance gibbon, and as a result sensible debate gets smothered in ad hominem attacks. The reality is that most users of it are normal middle-class people who easily maintain a job and have a bit of a dabble at the weekend.
And there IS a vast difference between coke/heroin et al and E in most respects. As far as I know, I've never encountered
- anyone being addicted to Ecstacy
- anyone fighting on it
- there have been (arguably) no deaths directly related to its use
- and this is a bit of a spurious reason, but the fact that they cost a couple of quid each, as opposed to £45+ means it doesn't lead to a perilous financial state either
I'd rather see E legalized than cannabis, which I still think should *probably* be legalized, although I do have some reservations about that. Then again, it's probably as much down to personal prejudice - I can't stand the stuff.
which she did because of what she'd been taught by government safety initiatives.
the story was such a big issue because the makers of Red Bull paid for massive adverts using her as a case against ecstasy
rather than the pill
a big long reply but alcxxk has done the job for me ^
and deaths from drink-driving are as a result of alcohol consumption, doesn't make alcohol a class a drug
Personally I don't believe that one death, 13 years ago, which has been attributed to other factors by an independent inquest, actually counts. But others do.
This is important:
'An inquest determined that her death was actually not directly due to ecstasy consumption, but rather the large quantity of water she had consumed, apparently in observation of an advisory warning commonly given to ravers to drink water to avoid dehydration resulting from the exertion of dancing continuously for hours. Leah had been at home with friends and had not been dancing, yet consumed about 7 litres in less than 90 minutes, resulting in water intoxication and hyponatremia (low sodium levels; in this case due to the dilution of blood), which in turn led to serious swelling of the brain (cerebral oedema), irreparably damaging it.'
as in, she died from swallowing the drug.
She drank too much water because she wasn't properly informed, a situation which could be avoided by legalization and subsequent education.
A man in the US died last month after drinking too water much after exercise - it happens, whether on E or not.
I've gone from being "legalize everything people can just choose what they do" to being "woah fuck pills can contribute to making certain people go crazy and get sectioned", according to experience...
... so I'm not sure that it's so clear cut any more.
psychotic breakdowns to be quite a big deal actually.
I'm not sure why the criminal and medical/social consequences have to be cast into an oppositional dichotomy, unless you just fancy an argument.
theres no way a government would want to appear to be soft on the possesion or taking of drugs (or even condoning it)
Unless you're Pete Doherty type. I meant lower sentences as in lesser charges.
is if people were fully exposed to the risks involved. There'd have to be a mandatory GCSE in the range of drug-induced disorders before people would be sufficiently informed in making the choice....
Do it then, why not? Just sell them to over 18s, (I can understand the problems with this, under age kids get alcohol after all, but I'm sure many kids could get drugs anyway regardless of them being illegal)
will never happen
im not saying i dont think the laws regarding drugs are anything but a bit of a mess, and legalisation might in an ideal world be a prospect, but it will never ever happen.
Its still a drug
They're disgustingly strong.